Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 W. Va. 472

State v. Cooper

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided June 16, 1914

West Virginia Supreme Court · decided 1914-06-16

<p>1. Jury — Disqualification of Juror — Grand Jury.</p> <p>One who served on the grand jury which returned an indictment is disqualified for service as a petit juror on the trial of a person thereby accused. (p.474).</p> <p>2. Same — Disqualification—Substitution of Juror.</p> <p>Though by the court deemed qualified upon voir dire and sworn as such juror, he not then recalling such former service, it was not error to excuse him from the panel of twelve, and in his stead to substitute another who upon examination was .ascertained to be free from disqualification, (p.474).</p> <p>3. Same — Challenge for Cause — Objection to Withdrawal of Juror.</p> <p>A mere objection to the withdrawal of a disqualified juror and the substitution of another upon due examination adjudged free from objection, is not a challenge for cause, (p.474).</p> <p>4. Same — Objection to Juror — Waiver.</p> <p>One accused of a felony waives his right of challenge, and will not, after verdict, be heard to complain, if, with knowledge of the disqualification, he remains silent or refuses, when afforded an opportunity, to exercise his right thereto, (p. 474).</p> <p>. 5. Criminal Law — Harmless Error — Argument of Counsel.</p> <p>Remarks of counsel in argument, which, when objected to, the court instructs the jury to disregard, is not cause for reversal of a judgment on a verdict otherwise free from error, (p. 478).</p> <p>6. Same — Homicide—Instructions—Evidence.</p> <p>A case in which rulings on instructions held not erroneous, (p. 476).</p> <p>(Poeeenbarger. and Robinson, Judges, dissenting.)</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1914-06-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2006

12 state decisions

401914192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PoffenbaRGBR, Judge,

¶1(dissenting):

¶2Tbe prisoner’s legal right of peremptory challenge having been curtailed and restricted in the selection of the jury, by the elimination of two of the twelve first selected and the substitution of two others, I am unable to concur in the decision. These two were not among the twenty, when he exercised his right to strike off six. If they had been, his striking might have been entirely different. In my opinion, when the two disqualified jurors were removed, the panel should have been filled again to twenty, and the prisoner permitted to strike over again. It is said he was accorded his privilege of peremptory challenge and declined to exercise it as to the two new jurors. He certainly did not have it accorded to him in the manner contemplated and required by the statute. What was offered him may have been just as good, and it may be possible to devise even a better scheme than the statutory one, but I do not think the courts have any power to substitute schemes and devices of their own for those ordained by the legislature.

¶3Whether the prisoner was injured in a practical sense by this denial of legal right, it is impossible to say. It is equally impossible to see that he was not. and a presumption of injury arises from error in a trial.

¶4Judge Robinson concurs in this note and also dissents from the decision.

/74/wva/472 · .json · Public domain